A revised version of this document was published in November 2015. http://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d345.htm
Basel Committee
on Banking Supervision
Implementation of Basel
standards
A report to G20 Leaders on
implementation of the Basel III
regulatory reforms
November 2014
A revised version of this document was published in November 2015. http://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d345.htm
This publication is available on the BIS website (www.bis.org).
©
Bank for International Settlements 2014. All rights reserved. Brief excerpts may be reproduced or
translated provided the source is stated.
ISBN 978-92-9131-986-2 (print)
ISBN 978-92-9131-987-9 (online)
A revised version of this document was published in November 2015. http://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d345.htm
Contents
Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Progress report on Basel III implementation.......................................................................................................................... 7
1.
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 7
2.
Adoption of Basel III standards ................................................................................................................................. 7
3.
Consistency of reforms ............................................................................................................................................... 10
4.
Implementation work plan ........................................................................................................................................ 11
Annex 1: Consistency of capital regulations in Australia, Brazil, Canada and China ............................................. 13
Annex 2: Schedule of upcoming RCAP assessments ......................................................................................................... 15
Annex 3: Basel III policy reforms and implementation ..................................................................................................... 16
Progress report on Basel III implementation
iii
A revised version of this document was published in November 2015. http://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d345.htm
Summary
This is the fifth report from the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision to update G20 Leaders on
progress in implementing the Basel III regulatory reforms by the 27 Basel Committee member
jurisdictions.1 It summarises the outcomes from the Regulatory Consistency Assessment Programme
(RCAP), which comprises three parts: (i) monitoring the progress in adopting Basel III standards; (ii)
assessing the consistency of national or regional banking regulations with the Basel III standards; and (iii)
analysing the prudential outcomes that are produced by those regulations.
Countries continue implementation efforts in accordance with the Committee’s objectives. By
end-2013, all Committee members had implemented Basel risk-based capital regulations. Efforts are
now under way to adopt Basel III regulations for liquidity and leverage ratios as well as for global
systemically important banks (G-SIBs) and domestic systemically important banks (D-SIBs). 2 As of
September 2014, 23 members had issued final or draft rules on their G-SIB or D-SIB framework, 26 had
issued final or draft rules on the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR), and 23 had issued final or draft rules on
the leverage ratio. Non-Basel Committee jurisdictions also report substantial progress in the adoption of
Basel III standards.
The Committee has analysed the implications of the Basel III standards for banks. Internationally
active banks continue to make progress towards meeting the fully phased-in minimum Basel III capital
requirements ahead of the 2019 deadline.3 In the second half of 2013, the average Common Equity
Tier 1 (CET1) capital ratio of large internationally active banks rose from 9.5% to approximately 10.2% of
risk-weighted assets. In addition, the aggregated capital shortfall of those banks in the sample with
capital ratios below the fully phased-in 2019 CET1 requirements continues to decrease: the CET1
shortfall was €15 billion in December 2013, down from €400 billion in 2011.4 The weighted average
Basel III leverage ratio for large internationally active banks was 4.4%, up from 3.7% in December 2012
(Graph 1). The weighted average LCR for internationally active banks was 119%, compared with 114% in
June 2013 (Graph 2). While these numbers suggest that most banks already meet the fully phased-in
Basel III minimum requirements, a number of banks still need to improve their capital and liquidity
positions to meet the Basel III minimum requirements. Also, as new Basel III regulations come into effect,
banks may need to make adjustments by, for example, increasing capital or modifying their funding
strategy.
The Committee’s programme to assess consistency of its members’ Basel III implementation
with the globally agreed standard remains on track. Since the last update, the Committee has concluded
implementation reviews of capital regulations in Australia, Brazil, Canada and China. Reviews are under
1
The last update to the G20 was in August 2013. That and previous updates to the G20 are available at
www.bis.org/bcbs/implementation/bprl1.htm.
2
The agreed start date for disclosure of the leverage ratio and the phase-in of the Liquidity Coverage Ratio is 1 January 2015.
The phase-in of the G-SIB and D-SIB requirements is from 1 January 2016.
3
By 2019, the minimum Basel III requirements will include a 7% Common Equity Tier 1 ratio (minimum plus capital
conservation buffer) and a 100% LCR. The minimum leverage ratio is 3%, subject to review by the Committee. Any final
adjustments to the definition and calibration of the leverage ratio will be made by 2017.
4
Note that the shortfall is not based on a stress test, but derived from the Committee’s quantitative impact study of banks’
actual capital positions as reported by banks at the end of 2013. The study is based on a sample of over 200 banks,
approximately half of which are large internationally active banks with Tier 1 capital in excess of €3 billion. The most recently
published Basel III monitoring report is available at www.bis.org/publ/bcbs289.htm.
5
Progress report on Basel III implementation
A revised version of this document was published in November 2015. http://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d345.htm
way to assess the consistency of capital regulations in the European Union, India, Mexico, South Africa
and the United States. The EU and US assessments will be published by this year-end.
It is encouraging that, where possible, jurisdictions are actively rectifying areas of material
inconsistency. As a result, regulations to adopt and implement Basel III standards are stronger than
would otherwise have been the case absent the Committee’s efforts at monitoring and assessing
implementation. Member jurisdictions are also reporting that the various elements of the RCAP are
fostering peer and industry dialogue on technical aspects of the Basel III framework, helping improve the
quality of implementation and reducing the variability in national regulations.
The implementation findings are already feeding into the Committee’s ongoing standard
setting work. For example, the Committee is following up on the published RCAP studies of banks’
calculations of risk-weighted assets (RWAs) in both the banking and trading books and is actively
considering various strands of work to improve the comparability of outcomes. The separate report to
the G20 Leaders entitled Reducing excessive variability in banks’ regulatory capital ratios provides an
overview of follow-up actions, including the introduction of capital floors and regular monitoring of
RWA variability through Hypothetical Portfolio Exercises (HPEs).
6
Progress report on Basel III implementation
A revised version of this document was published in November 2015. http://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d345.htm
Progress report on Basel III implementation
1.
Introduction
The Committee’s mandate is to strengthen the regulation, supervision and practices of banks worldwide
with the purpose of enhancing financial stability.5 The Committee’s work agenda has thus revolved
around four key themes: (i) completing the post-crisis reform agenda; (ii) focusing on implementation
efforts; (iii) reviewing the balance between simplicity, comparability and risk sensitivity of the framework;
and (iv) enhancing supervisory effectiveness. As the design of the core elements of the Committee’s
post-crisis policy response approaches completion, the Committee’s implementation agenda continues
to develop around three workstreams: (i) monitoring adoption of Basel III standards; (ii) assessing
consistency and completeness of members’ Basel III regulations vis-à-vis the globally agreed Basel
standards; and (iii) analysing regulatory outcomes. These provide the Committee with a strong basis to
monitor and evaluate the effects of Basel III reforms as they are being implemented.
2.
Adoption of Basel III standards
Monitoring members’ adoption of the Basel standards has provided transparency on the timeliness of
implementation, and complements the Committee’s quantitative impact study (QIS) work on banks’
readiness to meet the Basel framework’s minimum standards. Feedback from this work suggests that the
monitoring efforts have increased the peer pressure to adopt the new standards on a timely basis and
ensure their consistency with Basel III (Table 1).
By the end of 2013, all member jurisdictions had issued final rules for the risk-based capital
standards (in a few cases, the relevant standards and guidelines underpinning the final rules are still
being completed). In addition, members have begun to move towards introducing regulations for the
liquidity and leverage ratios, as well as the requirements that apply to firms designated as G-SIBs and
D-SIBs.
The quantitative monitoring of Basel III regulations shows that banks continue to make steady
progress towards meeting the new Basel standards for capital, liquidity and the leverage ratio. Most
banks already comply with the minimum Basel III ratios (Graphs 1 and 2). Of the 29 G-SIBs included in
the year-end 2013 Basel III monitoring exercise, 21 G-SIBs had already reached the CET1 target level plus
the surcharge. For the leverage ratio, 80% of the banks in the sample would meet a Basel Tier 1 leverage
ratio level of 3%. Regarding the LCR, 72% of the banks already meet or exceed the final LCR minimum
requirement of 100%, while 91% have LCRs that are at or above the initial 60% minimum requirement,
which becomes effective from 2015.6 Regarding the Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR), the average NSFR
for large, internationally active banks was 111% as of December 2013. In total, 78% of the banks
5
See www.bis.org/bcbs/charter.htm.
6
The LCR will be introduced on 1 January 2015, but the minimum requirement will begin at 60%, rising in equal annual steps
of 10 percentage points to reach 100% on 1 January 2019. This graduated approach is designed to ensure that the LCR can
be introduced without disruption to the orderly strengthening of banking systems or the ongoing financing of economic
activity.
7
Progress report on Basel III implementation
A revised version of this document was published in November 2015. http://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d345.htm
reported an NSFR that met or exceeded 100%. These data are based on the January 2014 version of the
NSFR, rather than the final version which is expected to be published by the end of the year. While banks
have made substantial progress, a number of banks still face shortfalls and further build-up of capital
and liquidity buffers remains critical.
Adoption status of Basel III
Number of Basel Committee member jurisdictions
Risk-based capital
standard
LCR
Leverage ratio
(disclosure standard)
G-SIB and D-SIB
standards
Table 1
October 2012
October 2013
October 2014
Final rules in force
0
12
27
Final rules issued (not in force)
7
14
--
Draft rules issued
18
1
--
Final rules in force
--
1
3
Final rules issued (not in force)
--
10
16
Draft rules issued
--
4
7
Final rules in force
--
--
4
Final rules issued (not in force)
--
--
11
Draft rules issued
--
--
8
Final rules in force
--
1
4
Final rules issued (not in force)
--
10
8
Draft rules issued
--
0
6
Source: Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Progress report on adoption of the Basel regulatory framework, October 2014, available at
www.bis.org/publ/bcbs290.htm.
Average Basel III capital ratios, capital shortfall and leverage ratios
Sample of large, internationally active banks
Graph 1
Capital shortfall1
Capital ratio
Leverage ratio
Per cent
€ bn
Per cent
5
800
4
600
3
400
2
200
1
0
0
2011
2012
2013
2011
2012
2013
CET1
1
The height of each bar shows the aggregated capital shortfall considering requirements for each tier (ie CET1, Tier 1 and Total) of capital.
Source: Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Basel III Monitoring Report, September 2014.
8
Progress report on Basel III implementation
A revised version of this document was published in November 2015. http://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d345.htm
Basel III liquidity ratios1
In per cent
Graph 2
Liquidity Coverage Ratio2
Net Stable Funding Ratio3
125
300
100
75
200
50
100
25
0
0
Sample of internationally active banks with Tier 1 capital in excess of €3 billion.
1
The median value is represented by a horizontal line, with 50% of the values falling in the range shown by the box. The upper and lower
end points of the black vertical lines show the range of the entire sample.
2
The sample is capped at 400%, meaning that all banks with an LCR above 400% were set to 400%. The red horizontal lines represent the
60% minimum (2015, dashed line) and the 100% minimum (2019, solid line).
3
Banks with an NSFR of above 150% are included in the calculation but are not shown in the graph.
Source: Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Basel III Monitoring Report, September 2014.
Non-Basel Committee, non-EU jurisdictions
Several non-Basel Committee member jurisdictions are increasingly adopting and implementing Basel II,
Basel 2.5 and Basel III standards. In July 2014, the Financial Stability Institute (FSI) issued its annual
progress report on Basel adoption in jurisdictions that are neither members of the Basel Committee nor
members of the European Union.7 The report updates the FSI’s previous progress report and provides
results as of end-June 2014.8
The results are based on information available from 109 jurisdictions and there has been
significant progress in the implementation efforts. Among these jurisdictions, 94 have either
implemented Basel II or are in the process of implementation, and 89 have implemented Basel III or are
in the process of implementation.
7
FSI Survey – Basel II, 2.5 and III Implementation, July 2014, available at www.bis.org/fsi/fsipapers.htm.
8
For the previous FSI progress report, see FSI Survey – Basel II, 2.5 and III Implementation, July 2013, available at
www.bis.org/fsi/fsipapers.htm.
9
Progress report on Basel III implementation
A revised version of this document was published in November 2015. http://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d345.htm
Surveys on Basel II and III implementation*
Graph 3
Basel III***
implemented/in process of implementation
Basel II***
implemented/in process of implementation
140
140
120
120
100
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
20
20
0
Others**
BCBS
2012
2013
2014
64
73
94
27
27
27
0
2012
2013
2014
Others**
32
52
89
BCBS
19
27
27
* Sources: BCBS; FSI.
** Including non-Basel Committee EU jurisdictions.
*** A jurisdiction that has implemented at least one subsection of Basel III is deemed to be in the process of implementation.
3.
Consistency of reforms
Thus far, assessments of seven jurisdictions (Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Japan, Singapore and
Switzerland) have been conducted to assess the consistency of their final risk-based capital rules with
the globally agreed standard. In each case, these jurisdictions were found to be overall “compliant” with
the Basel minimum standards. Annex 1 provides a summary of the assessments on Australia, Brazil,
Canada and China. Annex 2 provides an overview of upcoming jurisdictional assessments.
Overview of jurisdictional assessments
Status
Completed
assessments
10
Table 2
Jurisdiction
Publication date
of assessment
Number of regulatory changes made or
committed to be made
Overall
assessment grade
Japan
Oct 2012
5
Compliant
Singapore
Mar 2013
15
Compliant
Switzerland
Jun 2013
22
Compliant
China
Sep 2013
90
Compliant
Brazil
Dec 2013
42
Compliant
Australia
Mar 2014
14
Compliant
Canada
Jun 2014
54
Compliant
Progress report on Basel III implementation
A revised version of this document was published in November 2015. http://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d345.htm
In a few areas of the Basel risk-based capital framework, similar findings have been observed
across jurisdictions. However, on the whole, most material deviations appear to be idiosyncratic and
driven by specific local circumstances. Also, a deeper cross-check of these findings suggests that
deviations from the Basel framework typically represent deliberate choices made by the jurisdictions
owing to various factors, including legal requirements and local factors.
The assessments also note areas where jurisdictions are super-equivalent compared with the
Basel minimum standards, ie areas where the member jurisdiction has adopted stronger and more
conservative requirements. Super-equivalences account for roughly one-third of the total number of
differences identified by the RCAP reviews, ie they are less common than shortfalls from the minimum.
So far, no areas have been identified to be consistently super-equivalent, which suggests there are no
Basel capital standards that generally lack conservatism or are calibrated too low in the collective
judgement of the implementing authorities.
Besides the identification of deviations and super-equivalences, the RCAP process has
uncovered a few areas that are subject to differences in interpretation. The Committee has initiated a
process to examine these and provide clarifications.
The analysis of prudential outcomes has revealed that there are material practice-based
differences between banks’ risk-weighting of assets. This has a strong bearing on the implementation
goals of improving the consistency and reliability of prudential outcomes. It has implications for the
banks that have implemented advanced approaches and for banks and member jurisdictions seeking to
move towards the advanced approaches.9 Supervisors have discussed the results of the studies with their
domestic banks and provided detailed feedback to banks from the risk-weighted asset benchmarking
studies. This assessment and feedback process promotes greater consistency in the outcomes of the
implementation of international standards. See the separate report to G20 Leaders for the Brisbane
Summit entitled Reducing excessive variability in banks’ regulatory capital ratios.
4.
Implementation work plan
The Basel Committee has largely completed its post-crisis reform agenda, including the capital
frameworks for G-SIBs and D-SIBs and the final standards for the LCR, NSFR and leverage ratio (see
Annex 3 for an overview of key elements of the Basel standards). In 2014, the Committee has finalised
additional regulatory standards and consulted on other policy proposals as part of its completion of
post-crisis regulatory reforms.10 Finalising these standards and guidance are an important step for the
Committee in completing its crisis-related reforms, which, once implemented, will establish a stronger
and more resilient banking system.
9
For example, some members have indicated that their move towards adopting the advanced approaches (eg the Internal
Ratings-Based approach) is conditional on the Basel Committee’s anticipated guidance on reducing excessive risk-weighted
asset variations.
10
These include: capital requirements for bank exposures to central counterparties; a supervisory framework for measuring and
controlling large exposures; the leverage ratio disclosure requirements; liquidity coverage ratio disclosure standards; the net
stable funding ratio; and restricted-use committed liquidity facilities. The Committee has also issued guidance for supervisors
on market-based indicators of liquidity and has proposed revisions to Pillar 3 disclosure requirements.
11
Progress report on Basel III implementation
A revised version of this document was published in November 2015. http://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d345.htm
With regard to ongoing implementation efforts, the Committee will continue to emphasise
consistency of practices and analysis of outcomes to promote financial stability and a level playing field.
The key elements of the Committee’s implementation strategy for 2014–2016 will be to:
(i)
strengthen monitoring activities while continuing the semiannual monitoring of banks’ progress
in meeting the Basel III requirements;
(ii)
complete the first round of jurisdictional assessments of Basel III capital standards (by 2016);
(iii)
begin assessment of liquidity (LCR) and G-SIB and D-SIB standards from 2015;
(iv)
begin annual post assessment follow-up procedures; and
(v)
review the Committee’s implementation mandate and strengthen the RCAP process as new
Basel III standards come on stream.
12
Progress report on Basel III implementation
A revised version of this document was published in November 2015. http://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d345.htm
Annex 1
Consistency of capital regulations in Australia, Brazil, Canada and China
The following jurisdictions have been assessed since the last update to G20 Leaders in August 2013.
Australia
Australia's implementation of the Basel capital framework was found to be closely aligned with the
Basel III standards: 12 out of 14 assessed components were found to be “compliant”. The two
components that were graded “largely compliant” were the “definition of capital” and the “Internal
Ratings-Based approach for credit risk”, where some differences exist vis-à-vis the Basel framework. The
overall framework of Australia’s capital regulation was graded “compliant”.
The assessment team noted that some aspects of Australia’s capital regulations, such as those
related to the definition and measurement of capital, are more rigorous than required under the Basel
framework. The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) has also implemented some aspects
of the Basel III framework ahead of the internationally agreed timeline and has also decided not to opt
for the extended transition period for Basel framework implementation.
Brazil
Brazil’s implementation of the Basel capital framework was found to be closely aligned with the Basel III
global standards: 11 out of 14 assessed components were found to be “compliant”. The three
components that were graded “largely compliant” were the Standardised Approach for credit risk,
minimum requirements for capital buffers and Pillar 2 (the Supervisory Review Process). Although some
differences with the Basel framework were found in these areas, none of the findings were judged to be
material at this point. Therefore, the overall framework of Brazil’s capital regulation was graded
“compliant”.
During the assessment, new regulatory documents were issued to rectify a number of
provisions that were initially identified as deviations from the Basel framework. These additional
regulatory documents considerably improved the level of compliance with the Basel standards, and
demonstrate Brazil’s strong commitment to implement the global regulatory reforms.
Canada
The implementation by Canada of the Basel capital framework was found to be closely aligned with the
Basel III standards: 13 out of 14 assessed components were assessed to be “compliant”, while one
component, the “definition of capital”, was assessed as “largely compliant” due to some uncertainty
about the accounting classification of non-viability contingent capital preferred shares issued by banks
despite the fact that those instruments are clearly equity instruments in substance. The overall
framework of Canada’s capital regulation was graded “compliant”.
13
Progress report on Basel III implementation
A revised version of this document was published in November 2015. http://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d345.htm
The final assessment recognised the effort made by the Office of the Superintendent of
Financial Institutions (OSFI) to strengthen and align its capital rules with the Basel III framework in the
course of the assessment. These amendments were made public and implemented with effect from
25 April 2014. The Assessment Team also noted the more rigorous implementation of the Basel
framework in several aspects, with the major element being the bringing-forward of the 2019 Basel
capital ratio requirements to 2013 in the target capital ratios applied to all banks. In addition, OSFI
continues to apply the 90% transitional floor to Canadian banks using the Basel advanced approaches.
China
China’s implementation of the Basel capital framework was found to be closely aligned with the Basel III
global standards: 12 out of 14 assessed components were found to be “compliant”. The two components
that were graded “largely compliant” pertain to the Standardised Approach for credit risk and Pillar 3
(market discipline). Although some differences with the Basel framework were found in these areas, none
of the findings was judged to be material at this point. Therefore, the overall framework of China’s
capital regulation was graded “compliant”.
During the assessment, the China Banking Regulatory Commission (CBRC) issued four new
regulatory documents that rectified a number of provisions that were initially identified as deviations
from the Basel framework. These additional regulatory documents considerably improved the level of
compliance with the Basel standards. The CBRC’s response to the report expresses the strong
commitment of the Chinese authorities to implement the global regulatory reforms.
14
Progress report on Basel III implementation
A revised version of this document was published in November 2015. http://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d345.htm
Annex 2
Schedule of completed and upcoming RCAP assessments
RCAP: assessment of implementation of Basel III capital regulations (2012–2016)*
Basel Committee member jurisdiction
Assessment status
Table 3
(Tentative) publication date of
assessment report
European Union
Preliminary assessment
Published October 2012
United States
Preliminary assessment
Published October 2012
Japan
Completed
Published October 2012
Singapore
Completed
Published March 2013
Switzerland
Completed
Published June 2013
China
Completed
Published September 2013
Brazil
Completed
Published December 2013
Australia
Completed
Published March 2014
Canada
Completed
Published June 2014
European Union
Technical work completed
December 2014
United States
Technical work completed
December 2014
Hong Kong SAR
Under way
March 2015
Mexico
Under way
March 2015
India
Under way
June 2015
South Africa
Under way
June 2015
Saudi Arabia**
Planned
September 2015
Russia**
Planned
December 2015
Argentina**
Planned
March 2016
Turkey**
Planned
March 2016
Korea**
Planned
June 2016
Indonesia**
Planned
September 2016
* Assessments of implementation of Basel III standards relating to liquidity, leverage and G-SIBs, and follow-up assessments on capital
regulations, will start from 2015.
** The assessment work will be initiated or undertaken during 2015. Ahead of that, these BCBS members will undertake self-reviews based
on the RCAP assessment questionnaire.
15
Progress report on Basel III implementation
A revised version of this document was published in November 2015. http://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d345.htm
Annex 3
Basel III policy reforms and implementation
The Basel III framework builds on and enhances the regulatory framework set out under Basel II and
Basel 2.5.11

Basel II: Basel II, which improved the measurement of credit risk and included capture of
operational risk, was released in 2004 and was due to be implemented from year-end 2006. The
framework consists of three pillars: Pillar 1 contains the minimum capital requirements; Pillar 2
sets out the supervisory review process; and Pillar 3 corresponds to market discipline.

Basel 2.5: Basel 2.5, agreed in July 2009, enhanced the measurements of risks related to
securitisation and trading book exposures. Basel 2.5 was due to be implemented no later than
31 December 2011.

Basel III: In December 2010, the Committee released Basel III, which set higher levels for capital
requirements and introduced a new global liquidity framework. The Committee agreed to
implement Basel III from 1 January 2013, subject to transitional and phase-in arrangements.12

G-SIB framework: In July 2013, the Committee published the assessment methodology and
additional loss absorbency requirement for global systemically important banks (G-SIBs). The
requirements will be introduced on 1 January 2016 and become fully effective on 1 January
2019. To enable their timely implementation, national jurisdictions agreed to implement by
1 January 2014 the official regulations/legislations that establish the reporting and disclosure
requirements.

D-SIB framework: In October 2012, the Basel Committee issued a set of principles on the
assessment methodology and the higher loss absorbency requirement for domestic
systemically important banks (D-SIBs). Given that the D-SIB framework complements the G-SIB
framework, the Committee believes it would be appropriate if banks identified as D-SIBs by
their national authorities are required by those authorities to comply with the principles in line
with the phase-in arrangements for the G-SIB framework, ie from January 2016.

Liquidity Coverage Ratio: In January 2013, the Basel Committee issued the revised Liquidity
Coverage Ratio (LCR). The LCR underpins the short-term resilience of a bank’s liquidity risk
11
These standards are available at www.bis.org/bcbs/publications.htm.
12
In September 2013, the Committee issued the final framework for margin requirements for non-centrally cleared derivatives,
which will be phased in over a four-year period, beginning in December 2015 with the largest, most active and most
systemically important derivatives market participants. In December 2013, the Committee issued the final standard for the
treatment of banks' investments in the equity of funds that are held in the banking book, which will take effect from
1 January 2017. In April 2014, the Committee issued the final standard for the capital treatment of bank exposures to central
counterparties, which will come into effect on 1 January 2017. Also in April 2014, the Committee issued the final standard that
sets out a supervisory framework for measuring and controlling large exposures, which will take effect from 1 January 2019.
16
Progress report on Basel III implementation
A revised version of this document was published in November 2015. http://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d345.htm
profile. The LCR will be introduced on 1 January 2015 and will be subject to a transitional
arrangement before reaching full implementation on 1 January 2019.13

Leverage ratio: In January 2014, the Basel Committee issued the Basel III leverage ratio
framework and disclosure requirements following endorsement by its governing body, the
Group of Central Bank Governors and Heads of Supervision (GHOS). Implementation of the
leverage ratio requirements has begun with bank-level reporting to national supervisors of the
leverage ratio and its components, and will proceed with public disclosure starting on 1 January
2015.

Net Stable Funding Ratio: In October 2014, the Basel Committee issued the final standard of the
Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR). In line with the timeline specified in the 2010 publication of
the liquidity risk framework, the NSFR will become a minimum standard by 1 January 2018.
The BCBS working groups employ various modes of monitoring implementation, including selfassessment survey templates, case study presentations and outreach activities. Final reports, which
include observations and recommendations from the BCBS working group, are produced and presented
to the Committee on an ongoing basis. Some of the planned monitoring exercises to be conducted by
the BCBS working group are summarised in Table 4.
Basel III related implementation plans
BCBS standards/principles
Principles for effective
supervisory colleges
Margin requirements for noncentrally cleared derivatives
Principles for effective risk data
aggregation and risk reporting
Framework for dealing with
domestic systemically important
banks
Operating the countercyclical
capital buffer
13
17
Table 4
Mode of follow-up
/implementation
Self-assessment survey and
case studies
Planned output
1.
Report on supervisory colleges and crisis management
groups monitoring table (annual, May-2015)
2.
Case study presentations and a summary report
(ongoing)
1.
Progress report on implementation of margining
implementation (national and industry, by end-2014)
2.
Report on the review of the relation and consistency
of margin requirements with other regulatory
initiatives (by end-2014)
3.
Report on the impact of margin requirements and on
the use and effects of the exemptions to margin
requirements (by 2015)
1.
Analysis and report on banks’ self-assessments of
compliance (Q4 2014)
2.
Summary of implementation
supervisors (Q4 2014)
1.
Findings from SIB framework implementations within
BCBS jurisdictions (ongoing, 2014–15). This will also
inform the RCAP survey of national D-SIB frameworks,
starting in 2015
1.
Review on national implementation of the
countercyclical capital buffer, including further
guidance if necessary (targeted for end-2014)
2.
Analysis of the use of other macroprudential tools
(ongoing, 2014–15)
Survey, presentations and
review
Self-assessment survey
Survey
Survey
steps
taken
by
In January 2014, the Committee issued final requirements for banks’ LCR-related disclosures. Banks will be required to
comply with them from the date of the first reporting period after 1 January 2015.
Progress report on Basel III implementation